In a forceful ruling, Magistrate Krubally rejected the prosecution’s application to withdraw all four criminal charges against Abdul Wahab Jobarteh, ordering the case to proceed to trial with the prosecution presenting witnesses and evidence.
In his ruling, Magistrate Krubally expressed concerns about what he characterised as a selective and incomplete invocation of the law, a departure from the standards of honesty expected of prosecuting officers.
Magistrate Krubally criticised the prosecution’s failure to cite the Attorney General’s instructions as a statutory prerequisite under Section 78(1) of the Criminal Offences Act 2025, which governs withdrawal of charges before subordinate courts.
The prosecution, led by Assistant Commissioner of Police Manga, had invoked Section 78(1) and 78(2)(a) to justify the withdrawal, citing ongoing investigations and the likelihood of more serious charges being preferred against the accused.
However, Magistrate Krubally noted pointedly that Section 78(1) explicitly requires that a prosecutor may withdraw charges either “with the consent of the court or on the instructions of the Attorney General.” The prosecution never mentioned such instructions.
“His failure not to bring the said instruction of the Attorney General when he had the opportunity to read the said section 78 subsection 1 of the Criminal Offences Act of 2025 in open court in my view is not only deliberate but fortuitous,” the magistrate wrote in his ruling. “He failed to demonstrate honesty to the court and only quoted part of the said Criminal Offences Act that really favoured him.”
Magistrate Krubally also addressed the prosecution’s argument that more serious charges were anticipated and therefore the matter should be withdrawn pending further investigation. He noted that the Criminal Offences Act already provides for such scenarios through Section 218, which allows courts to amend charges or add new ones if evidence at trial discloses additional offences.
“Even though that is or will be in the nearer future, that is fine with the prosecution, meaning that it can decide to do so any time it thinks fit,” Magistrate Krubally reasoned. “So, in this circumstance, if the prosecution intends to press more charges against the Accused, it is not necessary to inform the court of such.”
Magistrate Krubally noted that the normal procedure would be for the prosecution to bring additional charges directly before the court and seek leave to add them, rather than withdrawing the existing matter.
Magistrate Krubally emphasised that Abdul Wahab Jobarteh, who pleaded not guilty to all four counts at his initial appearance on 8 June 2026, remains constitutionally presumed innocent until proven guilty. The four counts against him are attempted murder, reckless and rash act, disobedience to lawful orders, and common assault.
“In so far as I am concerned as the presiding Magistrate, there are yet only 4 (four) alleged counts pressed against the Accused herein Abdoul Wahab Jobarteh to which he pleaded not guilty in the presence of both his counsel herein Counsel Adama Sillah and the prosecution to which this court as court of record, equitable and legal principle and justice upholds and respect,” the magistrate stated.
Also in his ruling, Magistrate Krubally carried a broader institutional message. He warned the prosecution that “this court is not a playing ground but a place for serious judicial business,” and cautioned that “the legitimate public expectation demands that there must be a finality to litigation wherein at the end of the court’s decision parties that is the Accused and the crime victim know their faith.”
He cited a judicial dictum attributed to Justice Iziwago: “In the judicial tradition, our inclinations are judged by the people who appear before us.”
“So to guide such inclination to be quite honest, I cannot allow the matter to be withdrawn from this court on mere technicalities,” Magistrate Krubally concluded.
The prosecution has been ordered to present evidence to support the four criminal charges against the accused. The case has been adjourned to Thursday, 30 July 2026, at 12:00 pm for the commencement of the prosecution’s case, beginning with its witnesses.
Abdul Wahab Jobarteh stands accused of a dramatic incident on 5 June 2026 at Hegan Street in Banjul. The prosecution alleges that Abdul Wahab Jobarteh unlawfully attempted to cause the death of Sergeant 4485 Alagie Badjie by driving a vehicle with registration number BJL 6726 J while the sergeant was lying on the vehicle’s bonnet.
Abdul Wahab Jobarteh was charged with attempted murder, reckless and rash driving in a manner likely to endanger human life, willfully refusing to hand over vehicle particulars to the sergeant upon demand, and common assault for clicking the sergeant’s hand with the vehicle’s windscreen.
Abdul Wahab Jobarteh was initially arraigned on the four counts on 8 June 2026 and granted bail. However, on 16 June 2026, when the case resumed for the prosecution to present evidence, Assistant Commissioner of Police Manga surprised the court by announcing that the prosecution wished to withdraw all charges, claiming that ongoing investigations had revealed facts that might lead to “more serious charges” being preferred against the accused.
Defence Counsel Adama Sillah vigorously opposed the application, arguing that the prosecution was engaged in forum shopping and attempting to circumvent the court process. He pointed out that immediately after Jobarteh’s arraignment in the Banjul Magistrates’ Court, he was rushed to the Kanifing Magistrates’ Court on traffic-related charges—a pattern the defence characterised as an attempt to split proceedings across multiple courts rather than consolidate them before one forum.
Counsel Sillah also warned the court that granting the withdrawal would effectively place the accused back into police custody indefinitely, with no certainty as to when or whether fresh charges would be filed, a violation of his constitutional right to liberty under Section 19 of the 1997 Constitution.
Magistrate Krubally reserved his ruling and delivered his decision, and today rejected the prosecution’s application and affirmed that the case would proceed to trial.
